From: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
x86@kernel.org, Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Miguel Luis <miguel.luis@oracle.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@huawei.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
linuxarm@huawei.com, justin.he@arm.com, jianyong.wu@arm.com,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 04/16] ACPI: processor: Move checks and availability of acpi_processor earlier
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 14:17:24 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <80a2e07f-ecb2-48af-b2be-646f17e0e63e@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240426135126.12802-5-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
On 4/26/24 23:51, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> Make the per_cpu(processors, cpu) entries available earlier so that
> they are available in arch_register_cpu() as ARM64 will need access
> to the acpi_handle to distinguish between acpi_processor_add()
> and earlier registration attempts (which will fail as _STA cannot
> be checked).
>
> Reorder the remove flow to clear this per_cpu() after
> arch_unregister_cpu() has completed, allowing it to be used in
> there as well.
>
> Note that on x86 for the CPU hotplug case, the pr->id prior to
> acpi_map_cpu() may be invalid. Thus the per_cpu() structures
> must be initialized after that call or after checking the ID
> is valid (not hotplug path).
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
>
> ---
> v8: On buggy bios detection when setting per_cpu structures
> do not carry on.
> Fix up the clearing of per cpu structures to remove unwanted
> side effects and ensure an error code isn't use to reference them.
> ---
> drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> index ba0a6f0ac841..3b180e21f325 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> @@ -183,8 +183,38 @@ static void __init acpi_pcc_cpufreq_init(void) {}
> #endif /* CONFIG_X86 */
>
> /* Initialization */
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(void *, processor_device_array);
> +
> +static bool acpi_processor_set_per_cpu(struct acpi_processor *pr,
> + struct acpi_device *device)
> +{
> + BUG_ON(pr->id >= nr_cpu_ids);
One blank line after BUG_ON() if we need to follow original implementation.
> + /*
> + * Buggy BIOS check.
> + * ACPI id of processors can be reported wrongly by the BIOS.
> + * Don't trust it blindly
> + */
> + if (per_cpu(processor_device_array, pr->id) != NULL &&
> + per_cpu(processor_device_array, pr->id) != device) {
> + dev_warn(&device->dev,
> + "BIOS reported wrong ACPI id %d for the processor\n",
> + pr->id);
> + /* Give up, but do not abort the namespace scan. */
It depends on how the return value is handled by the caller if the namespace
is continued to be scanned. The caller can be acpi_processor_hotadd_init()
and acpi_processor_get_info() after this patch is applied. So I think this
specific comment need to be moved to the caller.
Besides, it seems acpi_processor_set_per_cpu() isn't properly called and
memory leakage can happen. More details are given below.
> + return false;
> + }
> + /*
> + * processor_device_array is not cleared on errors to allow buggy BIOS
> + * checks.
> + */
> + per_cpu(processor_device_array, pr->id) = device;
> + per_cpu(processors, pr->id) = pr;
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU
> -static int acpi_processor_hotadd_init(struct acpi_processor *pr)
> +static int acpi_processor_hotadd_init(struct acpi_processor *pr,
> + struct acpi_device *device)
> {
> int ret;
>
> @@ -198,8 +228,15 @@ static int acpi_processor_hotadd_init(struct acpi_processor *pr)
> if (ret)
> goto out;
>
> + if (!acpi_processor_set_per_cpu(pr, device)) {
> + acpi_unmap_cpu(pr->id);
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
With the 'goto out', zero is returned from acpi_processor_hotadd_init() to acpi_processor_get_info().
The zero return value is carried from acpi_map_cpu() in acpi_processor_hotadd_init(). If I'm correct,
we need return errno from acpi_processor_get_info() to acpi_processor_add() so that cleanup can be
done. For example, the cleanup corresponding to the 'err' tag can be done in acpi_processor_add().
Otherwise, we will have memory leakage.
> ret = arch_register_cpu(pr->id);
> if (ret) {
> + /* Leave the processor device array in place to detect buggy bios */
> + per_cpu(processors, pr->id) = NULL;
> acpi_unmap_cpu(pr->id);
> goto out;
> }
> @@ -217,7 +254,8 @@ static int acpi_processor_hotadd_init(struct acpi_processor *pr)
> return ret;
> }
> #else
> -static inline int acpi_processor_hotadd_init(struct acpi_processor *pr)
> +static inline int acpi_processor_hotadd_init(struct acpi_processor *pr,
> + struct acpi_device *device)
> {
> return -ENODEV;
> }
> @@ -316,10 +354,13 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_info(struct acpi_device *device)
> * because cpuid <-> apicid mapping is persistent now.
> */
> if (invalid_logical_cpuid(pr->id) || !cpu_present(pr->id)) {
> - int ret = acpi_processor_hotadd_init(pr);
> + int ret = acpi_processor_hotadd_init(pr, device);
>
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> + } else {
> + if (!acpi_processor_set_per_cpu(pr, device))
> + return 0;
> }
>
For non-hotplug case, we still need pass the error to acpi_processor_add() so that
cleanup corresponding 'err' tag can be done. Otherwise, we will have memory leakage.
> /*
> @@ -365,8 +406,6 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_info(struct acpi_device *device)
> * (cpu_data(cpu)) values, like CPU feature flags, family, model, etc.
> * Such things have to be put in and set up by the processor driver's .probe().
> */
> -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(void *, processor_device_array);
> -
> static int acpi_processor_add(struct acpi_device *device,
> const struct acpi_device_id *id)
> {
> @@ -395,28 +434,6 @@ static int acpi_processor_add(struct acpi_device *device,
> if (result) /* Processor is not physically present or unavailable */
> return 0;
>
> - BUG_ON(pr->id >= nr_cpu_ids);
> -
> - /*
> - * Buggy BIOS check.
> - * ACPI id of processors can be reported wrongly by the BIOS.
> - * Don't trust it blindly
> - */
> - if (per_cpu(processor_device_array, pr->id) != NULL &&
> - per_cpu(processor_device_array, pr->id) != device) {
> - dev_warn(&device->dev,
> - "BIOS reported wrong ACPI id %d for the processor\n",
> - pr->id);
> - /* Give up, but do not abort the namespace scan. */
> - goto err;
> - }
> - /*
> - * processor_device_array is not cleared on errors to allow buggy BIOS
> - * checks.
> - */
> - per_cpu(processor_device_array, pr->id) = device;
> - per_cpu(processors, pr->id) = pr;
> -
> dev = get_cpu_device(pr->id);
> if (!dev) {
> result = -ENODEV;
> @@ -469,10 +486,6 @@ static void acpi_processor_remove(struct acpi_device *device)
> device_release_driver(pr->dev);
> acpi_unbind_one(pr->dev);
>
> - /* Clean up. */
> - per_cpu(processor_device_array, pr->id) = NULL;
> - per_cpu(processors, pr->id) = NULL;
> -
> cpu_maps_update_begin();
> cpus_write_lock();
>
> @@ -480,6 +493,10 @@ static void acpi_processor_remove(struct acpi_device *device)
> arch_unregister_cpu(pr->id);
> acpi_unmap_cpu(pr->id);
>
> + /* Clean up. */
> + per_cpu(processor_device_array, pr->id) = NULL;
> + per_cpu(processors, pr->id) = NULL;
> +
> cpus_write_unlock();
> cpu_maps_update_done();
>
Thanks,
Gavin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-30 4:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-26 13:51 [PATCH v8 00/16] ACPI/arm64: add support for virtual cpu hotplug Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-26 13:51 ` [PATCH v8 01/16] ACPI: processor: Simplify initial onlining to use same path for cold and hotplug Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-26 16:05 ` Miguel Luis
2024-04-26 17:21 ` Miguel Luis
2024-04-26 17:49 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-26 17:57 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-04-26 18:09 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-26 13:51 ` [PATCH v8 02/16] cpu: Do not warn on arch_register_cpu() returning -EPROBE_DEFER Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-26 13:51 ` [PATCH v8 03/16] ACPI: processor: Drop duplicated check on _STA (enabled + present) Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-26 13:51 ` [PATCH v8 04/16] ACPI: processor: Move checks and availability of acpi_processor earlier Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-30 4:17 ` Gavin Shan [this message]
2024-04-30 9:28 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-30 10:12 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-04-30 10:13 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-30 10:17 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-04-30 10:45 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-30 10:47 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-04-30 13:42 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-26 13:51 ` [PATCH v8 05/16] ACPI: processor: Add acpi_get_processor_handle() helper Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-30 4:26 ` Gavin Shan
2024-04-30 11:07 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-26 13:51 ` [PATCH v8 06/16] ACPI: processor: Register deferred CPUs from acpi_processor_get_info() Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-26 13:51 ` [PATCH v8 07/16] ACPI: scan: switch to flags for acpi_scan_check_and_detach() Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-26 13:51 ` [PATCH v8 08/16] ACPI: Add post_eject to struct acpi_scan_handler for cpu hotplug Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-26 13:51 ` [PATCH v8 09/16] arm64: acpi: Move get_cpu_for_acpi_id() to a header Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-30 16:37 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2024-04-26 13:51 ` [PATCH v8 10/16] irqchip/gic-v3: Don't return errors from gic_acpi_match_gicc() Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-26 15:14 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-04-26 13:51 ` [PATCH v8 11/16] irqchip/gic-v3: Add support for ACPI's disabled but 'online capable' CPUs Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-26 16:26 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-04-26 18:28 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-28 11:28 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-04-29 9:21 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-30 12:15 ` Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-26 13:51 ` [PATCH v8 12/16] arm64: psci: Ignore DENIED CPUs Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-30 4:29 ` Gavin Shan
2024-04-26 13:51 ` [PATCH v8 13/16] arm64: arch_register_cpu() variant to check if an ACPI handle is now available Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-30 4:31 ` Gavin Shan
2024-04-26 13:51 ` [PATCH v8 14/16] arm64: Kconfig: Enable hotplug CPU on arm64 if ACPI_PROCESSOR is enabled Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-26 13:51 ` [PATCH v8 15/16] arm64: document virtual CPU hotplug's expectations Jonathan Cameron
2024-04-26 13:51 ` [PATCH v8 16/16] cpumask: Add enabled cpumask for present CPUs that can be brought online Jonathan Cameron
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=80a2e07f-ecb2-48af-b2be-646f17e0e63e@redhat.com \
--to=gshan@redhat.com \
--cc=Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=jean-philippe@linaro.org \
--cc=jianyong.wu@arm.com \
--cc=justin.he@arm.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
--cc=loongarch@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=lpieralisi@kernel.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=miguel.luis@oracle.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=salil.mehta@huawei.com \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).